I came across this interesting article(@CDF)written by an Indian ex-judge:

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/markandey-katju/reforms-will-not-do-india-any-good-only-a-revolution-will_a_22028052/

>> Reforms Will Not Do India Any Good—Only A Revolution Will <<

The tone is that India needs a revolution. 'Daring' as it seems, I'm amazed,though I'm not sure the author was just grossly misinformed as an ivory tower member of the elite or just rabble rousing, that he made the following claims:

............

"...It is potentially a highly developed country because it has two of the basic requirements to be a highly developed country—a huge pool of technical talent, and immense natural resources.

.... So till 1947 we had very few industries and very few engineers

The position today in 2017 is very different. Today we have a heavy industrial base, and a huge pool of competent engineers, technicians, scientists, managers, etc. Our IT engineers are manning Silicon Valley in California, and American universities are full of our mathematics and science professors..."

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

India is NOT well endowed in natural resources on a per capita basis period. And the hindu americans are hardly representative of the average hindus in India. I've a bad feeling that whenever 3rd worlders bragging about how successful are their kins in America, they're basically celebrating brain drain.

As a Chinese, let me point out the natural resource/capita scenario in China:

1)Lacks arable land, also water, hydrocarbon, copper, timber, uranium..

2)average to good: Coal, hydroelectricity, rare earth metal, titanium,lithium..

To overcome the above shortage,China is spending big on solar energy, desalination, biotech, graphene tech...

Sure China also suffers from brain drain but still manages to keep many talents home. Ever wonder why Tsinghua U now tops MIT in research outputs ?                                                                           ..........

Talking about 'revolution' in India; I've funny feeling. Here's a PRIME example: The Indian Independence movement led by Gandhi was said to be a 'non-violent' one, yet 2 millions hindus and muslims were killed in the aftermath partition religious war. I can't help but conclude that if the hindus need to resort to violatility(if not violence), it would be over religious matters but not social-political change. If people here have a different view on the possibility of revolution in India, please elaborate.